Dumb question? No, dumb ass post, by a flee bag Pooch.
What is that about Life, LIBERTY, and pursuit...?
What is the palladium of liberty?
Oh look, here it is:
Amendment II
Document 7
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 300 1803
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
The Founders' Constitution Volume 5, Amendment II, Document 7 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs7.html The University of Chicago Press
Tucker, St. George. Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 5 vols. Philadelphia, 1803. Reprint. South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969.
-- Palladium (protective image), an object believed to protect a city or nation from harm, a meaning generalized from -- Palladium (classical antiquity), a statue that protected Troy and later Rome
Are you fricking kidding me? You think the phrase 'rolling stones gather no moss' is referring to Mick and the boys? You are so fucking stupid that you don't understand the difference between The Rolling Stones and rolling stones? Your besotted girlfriend, Dog Gone, tried this same bullshit before. It ain't gonna fly, unless of course you think Justice Story was talking about Religion & Mythology
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” ~Justice Joseph Story, 1833
What rights are you speaking of? You, a mere person does not have any such "rights". What a truly ridiculous thing to say!
Without the government there would be NO rights. How can you, a mere subject of the State, who was born in a government hospital, raised in government schools, benefited from government utilities and regulation, has traveled to and from ones occupation on government roads, and who's life, liberty, and property where protected from threats, foreign and domestic by a government military and police force, be so brazenly arrogant to challenge the very institution that has protected, and indeed endowed us with liberty, property and above all, life. The twenty-first century American is very much a creation of the state, as without police officers, firefighters, social workers, and soldiers, there would be no quality of life, no liberty and no property worth defending. If any ancestor of yours had not received welfare, in some form, it is possible that you would not be here today. Has not the food with which we are nourished by (the safety of which is guaranteed by the State)traveled to your dinner table on government roads? Would you be alive today if it where not for a collective right for the State (not the mere subject) to keep and bear arms, in the form of a professional military and police force? We must at all times consider ourselves a creation of the State, which has (directly or indirectly) endowed the ordinary subject, with their very lives, property and the freedoms that we take for granted.
Therefore you, a mere person has no reasonable claim to any "right" which manifestly infringes upon the authority of the State.
The State however does bear obligations to it's subjects.
Such as the right to civilian disarmament.
The such a right is necessitated, considering the social harm caused by the possession and use of small arms by civilians, and the preamble of the current U.S. constitution which states that it is the responsibility of government to "ensure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare", that a Fundamental Right to Civilian Disarmament,could be established domestically, and later, internationally. In order for the government to achieve such goals, the government must take reasonable measures to ensure that state actors have a monopoly on the use of small arms, which requires the general prohibition of the possession of small arms (as well as other deadly devices) by mere civilians.
Dumb question? No, dumb ass post, by a flee bag Pooch.
ReplyDeleteWhat is that about Life, LIBERTY, and pursuit...?
What is the palladium of liberty?
Oh look, here it is:
Amendment II
Document 7
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 300
1803
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 5, Amendment II, Document 7
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs7.html
The University of Chicago Press
Tucker, St. George. Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 5 vols. Philadelphia, 1803. Reprint. South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969.
orlin sellers
Wrong one. Try this one.
ReplyDeletehttp://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs7.html
Religion and mythology
ReplyDelete-- Palladium (protective image), an object believed to protect a city or nation from harm, a meaning generalized from
-- Palladium (classical antiquity), a statue that protected Troy and later Rome
Guns are strong ju-ju!
And again, irrelevant. You know what we're talking about.
DeleteAre you fricking kidding me? You think the phrase 'rolling stones gather no moss' is referring to Mick and the boys? You are so fucking stupid that you don't understand the difference between The Rolling Stones and rolling stones?
DeleteYour besotted girlfriend, Dog Gone, tried this same bullshit before. It ain't gonna fly, unless of course you think Justice Story was talking about Religion & Mythology
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” ~Justice Joseph Story, 1833
Pooch, my middle finger salutes you.
orlin sellers
What rights are you speaking of? You, a mere person does not have any such "rights". What a truly ridiculous thing to say!
DeleteWithout the government there would be NO rights. How can you, a mere subject of the State, who was born in a government hospital, raised in government schools, benefited from government utilities and regulation, has traveled to and from ones occupation on government roads, and who's life, liberty, and property where protected from threats, foreign and domestic by a government military and police force, be so brazenly arrogant to challenge the very institution that has protected, and indeed endowed us with liberty, property and above all, life. The twenty-first century American is very much a creation of the state, as without police officers, firefighters, social workers, and soldiers, there would be no quality of life, no liberty and no property worth defending. If any ancestor of yours had not received welfare, in some form, it is possible that you would not be here today. Has not the food with which we are nourished by (the safety of which is guaranteed by the State)traveled to your dinner table on government roads? Would you be alive today if it where not for a collective right for the State (not the mere subject) to keep and bear arms, in the form of a professional military and police force? We must at all times consider ourselves a creation of the State, which has (directly or indirectly) endowed the ordinary subject, with their very lives, property and the freedoms that we take for granted.
Therefore you, a mere person has no reasonable claim to any "right" which manifestly infringes upon the authority of the State.
The State however does bear obligations to it's subjects.
Such as the right to civilian disarmament.
The such a right is necessitated, considering the social harm caused by the possession and use of small arms by civilians, and the preamble of the current U.S. constitution which states that it is the responsibility of government to "ensure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare", that a Fundamental Right to Civilian Disarmament,could be established domestically, and later, internationally. In order for the government to achieve such goals, the government must take reasonable measures to ensure that state actors have a monopoly on the use of small arms, which requires the general prohibition of the possession of small arms (as well as other deadly devices) by mere civilians.
Jade, are you unaware that there are private hospitals and schools?
Delete"Guns are strong ju-ju." You can't argue with that.
ReplyDeleteSo says Laci, Mike B's pet lawyer and self proclaimed Soooper Geeenius.
DeleteWell, Mikeb, at least you've admitted something.
Delete